Facial Distinctiveness and the Power of Caricatures

Caricatures, which increase the distinctiveness of faces, are generally recognised at least as well as undistorted images of those faces. However, caricatures seem to facilitate recognition more for some faces than others. An investigation was made into whether the effectiveness of caricaturing depends on a face‘s initial distinctiveness. In experiments 1–3, subjects learned names for unfamiliar faces (photographs) that varied in distinctiveness, and were tested on recognition of caricatures, anticaricatures, and undistorted images of those faces. The test images were line drawings in experiments 1 and 2 and photographic images in experiment 3. Experiments 1 and 2 were identical except that subjects had more exposure to the study photographs in experiment 1. In all three experiments, distinctive faces were recognised (named) more accurately than less-distinctive faces, and caricatures were recognised at least as accurately as undistorted images and better than anticaricatures. However, distinctiveness and caricature level did not interact. Nor did a face's initial distinctiveness correlate with the degree of recognition facilitation produced by caricaturing (experiments 1–3) or with the caricature level chosen as the best likeness (experiment 4). The effectiveness of caricatures varied across faces and experimental conditions, but these differences did not relate to differences in initial distinctiveness. These results prompted a more careful analysis of the expected relationship between initial distinctiveness and the power of caricatures, which indicated that the relationship may be curvilinear rather than linear. In addition, it was found that line-drawing caricatures functioned as superportraits (recognised better than undistorted images—experiment 1) but photographic caricatures did not (experiment 3), suggesting that the forensic potential of caricatures may be limited.

[1]  H. Ellis The development of face processing skills. , 1992, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[2]  H. Ellis,et al.  Age Effects in the Processing of Typical and Distinctive Faces , 1995, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[3]  G. Rhodes,et al.  Identification and ratings of caricatures: Implications for mental representations of faces , 1987, Cognitive Psychology.

[4]  Vicki Bruce,et al.  Describing the shapes of faces using surface primitives , 1993, Image Vis. Comput..

[5]  T. Valentine The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology a Unified Account of the Effects of Distinctiveness, Inversion, and Race in Face Recognition , 2022 .

[6]  D. Thomson,et al.  Development of face recognition. , 1995, British journal of psychology.

[7]  Michael Kubovy,et al.  Caricature and face recognition , 1992, Memory & cognition.

[8]  D. Perrett,et al.  Visual Processing of Facial Distinctiveness , 1994, Perception.

[9]  V. Bruce,et al.  The importance of ‘mass’ in line drawings of faces , 1992 .

[10]  F. Keil,et al.  Categorical effects in the perception of faces , 1995, Cognition.

[11]  B. Tversky,et al.  Memory for faces: Are caricatures better than photographs? , 1985, Memory & cognition.

[12]  G. Rhodes Superportraits: Caricatures and Recognition , 1996 .

[13]  G. Rhodes,et al.  Averageness, Exaggeration, and Facial Attractiveness , 1996 .

[14]  V. Bruce,et al.  What's Distinctive about a Distinctive Face? , 1994, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[15]  D. Perrett,et al.  Perception and recognition of photographic quality facial caricatures: Implications for the recognition of natural images , 1991 .

[16]  G. Rhodes,et al.  Understanding face recognition: Caricauture effects, inversion, and the homogeneity problem , 1994 .

[17]  W. James Caricature Recognition in a Neural Network , 1996 .

[18]  G. Rhodes,et al.  Distinctiveness and Expertise Effects with Homogeneous Stimuli: Towards a Model of Configural Coding , 1990, Perception.

[19]  Gillian Rhodes,et al.  What's lost in inverted faces? , 1993, Cognition.